[S Monkey]

These are pictures from the first Gulf War ...

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt03.html

I think this is what the people who want to disarm Iraq peacefully want to avoid.

[Dex13]

Originally posted by S Monkey:
These are pictures from the first Gulf War ...

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt03.html

I think this is what the people who want to disarm Iraq peacefully want to avoid.

No S***.

[eVil_kEybOarD]

http://www.krg.org/reference/halabja/index.asp

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

What is "Cool" about those picts??

[S Monkey]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
What is "Cool" about those picts??

That was ironic.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
What is "Cool" about those picts??

And the whole of MacNN rocks in tremulous irony!

About the pics ... war ain't pretty. Neither are carbonized bodies.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by S Monkey:
That was ironic.

name once I ever showed images of death or distruction?

Nice try though.

[swsteckly]

I think a more striking precedent would be to show the innocent people killed, not soldiers. I think a picture of innocent children lying dead because of militaristic brutality would make even the most die-hard war supporter think twice.

'Necessary' conflicts like world war two are one thing, but this kind of thing, which can be avoided peacefully, are something that shocks me to the core.

[finboy]

This is a little out of date, but it's all I can find right now:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

As for the original picture in the thread, I bet those guys found it REALLY hard to quit smoking.

They had their chance. Many of their brethren gave up and walked away.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
This is a little out of date, but it's all I can find right now:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

As for the original picture in the thread, I bet those guys found it REALLY hard to quit smoking.

They had their chance. Many of their brethren gave up and walked away.

Has anyone noticed all of the civilian vehicles and household goods lying wrecked in those "highway of death" pictures? Did it occur to anyone to ask how they came to be in an Iraqi army convoy?

Those are vehicles and property looted by Saddam's army after they invaded and annexed Kuwait.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Has anyone noticed all of the civilian vehicles and household goods lying wrecked in those "highway of death" pictures? Did it occur to anyone to ask how they came to be in an Iraqi army convoy?

Those are vehicles and property looted by Saddam's army after they invaded and annexed Kuwait.

There aren't any pictures of the "unseen" killing of civilians in Kuwait, massacre of Shi'a in southern Iraq, or gassing of Kurds there, either.

[Zimphire]

AH, the old tug at the heart strings approach to gather the guilible.

[swsteckly]

Zimphire sez:

'Kill! Kill! Kill! Till there's no one else alive! Then the master country (US) can own the world!'

[swsteckly]

Does thinking that your country is superior to all others and everyone should yield to you sound a little like a previous world enemy? It does to me.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by swsteckly:
Does thinking that your country is superior to all others and everyone should yield to you sound a little like a previous world enemy? It does to me.

Yup Natzi's. And lets through some Christians into the mix for good measure

[finboy]

Check your facts. The US has without question saved more lives than it's ever taken or allowed to be taken.

Oh, wherever you live in the world, the whole US says "You're welcome."

[7Macfreak]

that's just so cool, i just hope they release better higher quality pictures this time.... and relatively sooner even.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by finboy:
Check your facts. The US has without question saved more lives than it's ever taken or allowed to be taken.

Oh, wherever you live in the world, the whole US says "You're welcome."

The US wasn't the only country to fight in WWII so STFU! Do you have any stats on the whole saved more lives than taken bit? And does saving lives give you a quota for killing?

[scaught]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Has anyone noticed all of the civilian vehicles and household goods lying wrecked in those "highway of death" pictures? Did it occur to anyone to ask how they came to be in an Iraqi army convoy?

Those are vehicles and property looted by Saddam's army after they invaded and annexed Kuwait.

thats an awfully bold claim that probably cant be backed up, sir.

[Gripen]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
http://www.krg.org/reference/halabja/index.asp

Why didn't the US stop it then? Why did the US give them the expertise needed for making WMD's. Sure you feel better when pointing out something that happened years ago but you forget that the US indirectly helped in using WMD's against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish families. Why does noone from the US mention what Turkey has done to Kurds? What, that doesn't matter? Get of your high horse and step into the real world. The real world where people actually die in wars, the real world where innocents are killed, the real world where Hiroshima and Nagasaki are atrocities and not something you talk about as a mean to end a war. Did you support the uprising after GWI or did you just sit on your comfy chair at home gloating over the incredible success of your troops in Kuwait? You think this war will end terrorism? You think this war will save lives? If so step away from your little apartment and start traveling, travel around the world and try to get a grasp of why people sometimes are strongly against the US. Because there is a why, whatever your government and media tells you. Or are you just afraid you might get flagged by the FBI/CIA/NSA/........?

Can you believe this guy?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by finboy:
Check your facts. The US has without question saved more lives than it's ever taken or allowed to be taken.

You might want to put that statement to the American Indian Nation.

By 1891 the native population had been reduced to 2.5% from its original number, 12 million.

[theolein]

Originally posted by finboy:
Check your facts. The US has without question saved more lives than it's ever taken or allowed to be taken.

Oh, wherever you live in the world, the whole US says "You're welcome."

There might be one or two Vietnamese that might disagree with you on that one.

However, all this "We saved/killed more people than you" sh!t is useless. I wish for you that you one day get the opportunity to witness the suffering and agony that war causes first hand. I don't wish you to suffer, although knocking some sense into your eerliy empty skull does sound appealing, but I do wish that you get a chance to witness some of the agony and suffering first hand that goes on in this world as cause of wars. I don't know if you're an adept of that trash-mouth radio jockey who blames all the suffering of the world's destitute on themselves, although gathering from your "they had their chance" comment I could believe it, but it would do you some good to see first hand what real suffering is. Perhaps it'll happen to you some day, then you can come here and tell us about how it was all your own fault, and that you're not concerned about what you have felt or seen.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by scaught:
thats an awfully bold claim that probably cant be backed up, sir.

Sure it can. Read up on the Gulf War. I know that Colin Powell's autobiography discusses it. Besides which, I have talked to people who saw the Highway of Death with their own eyes as members of the US Army. Many of the shot-up vehicles were stolen from Kuwait, and there were trucks and trucks full of looted consumer goods. Apparently, it was quite a sight.

The highway of death was the highway from Kuwait City to Basra and it became a turkey shoot, which is why the US precipitously ended the war (it looked awful shooting at people running away). Nevertheless, most of the Iraqi troops killed there could have saved themselves by abandoning their vehicles and going cross country as little as a few hundred meters. They didn't do that because that would have meant abandoning their booty, much of which was in the form of stolen civilian vehicles that couldn't go off road.

Anyway, this is all well-documented. It should be in any decent history of the Gulf War.

[finboy]

Originally posted by theolein:
There might be one or two Vietnamese that might disagree with you on that one.

However, all this "We saved/killed more people than you" sh!t is useless. I wish for you that you one day get the opportunity to witness the suffering and agony that war causes first hand. I don't wish you to suffer, although knocking some sense into your eerliy empty skull does sound appealing, but I do wish that you get a chance to witness some of the agony and suffering first hand that goes on in this world as cause of wars. I don't know if you're an adept of that trash-mouth radio jockey who blames all the suffering of the world's destitute on themselves, although gathering from your "they had their chance" comment I could believe it, but it would do you some good to see first hand what real suffering is. Perhaps it'll happen to you some day, then you can come here and tell us about how it was all your own fault, and that you're not concerned about what you have felt or seen.

What's all this then? I agree all the "who killed whom" is insane. It is absolutely impossible to measure all the lives saved from US-developed drugs, agricultural technology, direct financial support, etc. which results from our high standard of living and economic success. So yeah, it's a moot point.

As for my "eerily empty skull," I don't know why you feel the need to resort to personal insults. I know suffering, personally. I've seen violent, senseless death, personally. I've served in the military, personally, for which a swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States WITH MY LIFE if necessary, personally. I certainly don't think that war is trite, but the posting of pictures of smoking corpses in an effort to generate a sense of national guilt is absolutely pathetic.

You advocate "knocking" some sense into me. Isn't that a curious emotion for someone who abhors violence? Please don't let my casual attitude about inflammatory and gratutious pictures of war's results lead you to believe that I somehow advocate violence. Far from it -- I see violence as a response to violence. I see violence and war as something we must always be ready to hand out to those folks who understand only violence. And I think the Hell's Angels have a good saying that pertains to violence -- "sh*t comes back tenfold."

As for radio, I don't know where you're going there, either, but I don't blame the circumstances of the world's unfortunate masses on themselves, but usually the cause is their leaders or form of governance. (I've never heard anyone on the radio do that either). In some cases, the suffering is caused by leaders and intellectuals who refuse to accept reality, or who impose their own limited expectations on folks and end up denying them freedom.

I don't know what you're on about, but it probably isn't good for your health. One thing we have learned here in the US is that stress kills.

Finally, with regard to other posts, this undercurrent suggesting that the US got its economic success on the backs of the rest of the world -- bullsh*t.

[Gripen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sure it can. Read up on the Gulf War. I know that Colin Powell's autobiography discusses it. Besides which, I have talked to people who saw the Highway of Death with their own eyes as members of the US Army. Many of the shot-up vehicles were stolen from Kuwait, and there were trucks and trucks full of looted consumer goods. Apparently, it was quite a sight.

The highway of death was the highway from Kuwait City to Basra and it became a turkey shoot, which is why the US precipitously ended the war (it looked awful shooting at people running away). Nevertheless, most of the Iraqi troops killed there could have saved themselves by abandoning their vehicles and going cross country as little as a few hundred meters. They didn't do that because that would have meant abandoning their booty, much of which was in the form of stolen civilian vehicles that couldn't go off road.

Anyway, this is all well-documented. It should be in any decent history of the Gulf War.

You are defending shooting retreating troops! WTF??? Sure they stole this and that, but do you really value lives that little, well I meant other than US lives. How much of the loot did allies return? And you wonder why people don't want the US to decide what is done and where. Would you leave your car and run when there is raining bombs? Are you really that ignorant?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Gripen:
You are defending shooting retreating troops! WTF??? Sure they stole this and that, but do you really value lives that little, well I meant other than US lives. How much of the loot did allies return? And you wonder why people don't want the US to decide what is done and where. Would you leave your car and run when there is raining bombs? Are you really that ignorant?

Those weren't their cars to abandon. That was property plundered from an occupied country. Does the phrase "rape and pillage" mean anything to you? Why are you defending war criminals?

Yes, it looked bad firing upon a retreating mob of an army. So the coalition stopped firing. This allowed the Republican Guard to escape. Shortly afterwards, Saddam used the Republican Guard to massacre civilians who rose up against his regime. Or are you so ignorant that you don't know that?

[Gripen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Those weren't their cars. That was property plundered from an occupied country. Does the phrase "rape and pillage" mean anything to you? Why are you defending war criminals?

Yes, it looked bad firing upon a retreating mob of an army. So the coalition stopped firing. This allowed the Republican Guard to escape. Shortly afterwards, Saddam used the Republican Guard to massacre civilians who rose up against his regime. Or are you so ignorant that you don't know that?

Did I defend them? I said killing retreating troops are wrong. Once again I ask, how much of the loot was returned to their rightful owners?

You talk about the massacre like the US had no part in the result. US talked about helping and supporting a coup in Iraq. When the uprising began there was absolutly no support. Sure go ahead and defend your countries imperialistic ideals all you want, but don't think for a second I wont continue critizing it.

Nevertheless, most of the Iraqi troops killed there could have saved themselves by abandoning their vehicles and going cross country as little as a few hundred meters. They didn't do that because that would have meant abandoning their booty, much of which was in the form of stolen civilian vehicles that couldn't go off road.

I'll ask you again, would you have left your vehicle while the allies were dropping bombs. Then you talk about most of the vehicles being able to go off road. You really don't think it would have been possible to take out the road and thereby stopping them escaping with the booty?

[funkboy]

Originally posted by finboy:
Oh, wherever you live in the world, the whole US says "You're welcome."

....cause he's, Nick Burns, your company's computer guy!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Gripen:
You talk about the massacre like the US had no part in the result. US talked about helping and supporting a coup in Iraq. When the uprising began there was absolutly no support. Sure go ahead and defend your countries imperialistic ideals all you want, but don't think for a second I wont continue critizing it.

This is contradictory. The US basically agreed with your point about the morality of shooting an army in full retreat. That's why the US ended the war early and allowed the remnants to escape. That decision (thought made for humanitarian reasons and the best of intentions) had a consequence that was not intended. It allowed the Iraqi army to be turned around to be used on Iraqi civilians.

You seem to want to blame the US coming and going. Either way, it's all the US' fault. Try to move beyond that fixation and maybe we can talk.

[roger_ramjet]

Deadlier Than War
By Walter Russell Mead

... Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.

In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.

The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.

Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War - and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5...

[theolein]

Originally posted by finboy:
What's all this then? I agree all the "who killed whom" is insane. It is absolutely impossible to measure all the lives saved from US-developed drugs, agricultural technology, direct financial support, etc. which results from our high standard of living and economic success. So yeah, it's a moot point.

As for my "eerily empty skull," I don't know why you feel the need to resort to personal insults. I know suffering, personally. I've seen violent, senseless death, personally. I've served in the military, personally, for which a swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States WITH MY LIFE if necessary, personally. I certainly don't think that war is trite, but the posting of pictures of smoking corpses in an effort to generate a sense of national guilt is absolutely pathetic.

You advocate "knocking" some sense into me. Isn't that a curious emotion for someone who abhors violence? Please don't let my casual attitude about inflammatory and gratutious pictures of war's results lead you to believe that I somehow advocate violence. Far from it -- I see violence as a response to violence. I see violence and war as something we must always be ready to hand out to those folks who understand only violence. And I think the Hell's Angels have a good saying that pertains to violence -- "sh*t comes back tenfold."

As for radio, I don't know where you're going there, either, but I don't blame the circumstances of the world's unfortunate masses on themselves, but usually the cause is their leaders or form of governance. (I've never heard anyone on the radio do that either). In some cases, the suffering is caused by leaders and intellectuals who refuse to accept reality, or who impose their own limited expectations on folks and end up denying them freedom.

I don't know what you're on about, but it probably isn't good for your health. One thing we have learned here in the US is that stress kills.

Finally, with regard to other posts, this undercurrent suggesting that the US got its economic success on the backs of the rest of the world -- bullsh*t.

As opposed to the others that US weapons have killed? Yours isn't the only country that exports weapons (including chemical and biological ones) to mentally disturbed dictators and then regrets it later. It seems to be a fun thing for most countries to do. What is wrong, is your seemingly idealistic claim that your country is saving the world. Because, that, is simply not the way the rest of the world sees it. This country in which I live, for all it's sh!tty sides, at least has a law these days forbidding the export of weapons to areas of crisis. The amount of aid to developing countries from the USA is dwarfed by the amount of military aid by the same. It is likewise ridiculous that every single time your country decides to start some war in some caountry, that it is left to the so called "appeasers", as you and your fellow travellers so quaintly put it, to pay for the mess afterwards. Your own country is in a mess economically, and the repurcussions of the worsening of relations between your country and Europe is not going to make things better for you or us.

I know that dreaming that the world suddenly coming to peace is ridiculous, but there is a very good notion for doing the right thing at the right time...

And this isn't it.

[finboy]

Originally posted by theolein:
What is wrong, is your seemingly idealistic claim that your country is saving the world.

Never said that. I merely tried to point out that the US also brings a lot of positive things to the table. We have, also, in the past, saved the world's fudge numerous times. When the two are weighed (good vs. bad) I think most rational people around the world, if pressed, would agree that over time the US has done more GOOD things than bad things. No way are we saving the world, but you must admit that the world would be a vastly different place without us and our technology and our money. The good outweighs the bad, and the world is a much better place for it.

As for our economy here in the US, our political situation, etc. what do you know of it? I suggest that if you get your info from mass media, rather than personal experience, you might be getting fed what someone wants you to hear. The economy here isn't that bad, but announcing that it is fits the Leftist political agenda nicely. Making it seem that there are large numbers of folks here who oppose our national security interests serves the same purpose.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by finboy:
Never said that. I merely tried to point out that the US also brings a lot of positive things to the table. When the two are weighed (good vs. bad) I think most rational people around the world, if pressed, would agree that over time the US has done more GOOD things than bad things. No way are we saving the world, but you must admit that the world would be a vastly different place without us and our technology and our money. The good outweighs the bad, and the world is a much better place for it.

As for our economy here in the US, our political situation, etc. what do you know of it? I suggest that if you get your info from mass media, rather than personal experience, you might be getting fed what someone wants you to hear. The economy here isn't that bad, but announcing that it is fits the Leftist political agenda nicely. Making it seem that there are large numbers of folks here who oppose our national security interests serves the same purpose.

The ability to come on to these forums, and claim the US is evil and it sucks, comes from the US.

How ironic.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by S Monkey:
These are pictures from the first Gulf War ...

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt03.html

I think this is what the people who want to disarm Iraq peacefully want to avoid.

Kentucky Fried Ragheads. I like mine with lettuce and tomato.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by jcadam:
Kentucky Fried Ragheads. I like mine with lettuce and tomato.

Okay that isn't an offensive post.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Okay that isn't an offensive post.

It doesn't offend me

[shmerek]

Originally posted by jcadam:
It doesn't offend me

but it speaks volumes of your character...

[Gripen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You seem to want to blame the US coming and going. Either way, it's all the US' fault. Try to move beyond that fixation and maybe we can talk.

When did I say that it is all the US fault? I said this upcoming war, the status quo in trans-atlantic relations, the slaughter of retreating armies, and the anti-americanism you experiance today is mostly your own fault. I never said that everything was the US fault, I'm not fixated on that and I can't say I understand how you came up with that. I'm very frustrated when your government behaves like it does, I'm irritated when a country wants nothing but war and I hate when "superpowers" use their powers only for their own purposes and force other to follow. I hate when I see american people blaming the European nations for this crisis, I hate it when I see americans saying that we are pro-Saddam, and the thing I hate the most is that I've very seldom seen any of the americans actually questioning anything your government does. It doesn't seem like you care about your rights or the lives of others, all you care about is actually a mystery. It's partially money, partially oil, partially control of the middle east, and partially protecting your own interests in the mean time. But to summarize it into one word, it is what is called imperialism.

[talisker]

Originally posted by finboy:
We have, also, in the past, saved the world's fudge numerous times.

I can think of relatively few, well to be precise, two situations when the USA contributed to saving "the world's fudge". OK, WW1 & WW2 are undeniably biggies, but surely America didnt really enter these wars due to altruism, they did it to protect their own interests. In doing so they belatedly joined the other countries that had already been involved in fudge-saving for several years, as simply another participant. What you're really talking about is the USA "saving it's own fudge by military action elsewhere in the world". That's fine, but don't pass it off as some selfless act of generosity.

As for the more recent inept bungling in Veitnam, Somalia, Panama etc, hard to see how much of the world's fudge, or any sort of confectionary, was saved there.

[swsteckly]

I can think of relatively few, well to be precise, two situations when the USA contributed to saving "the world's fudge". OK, WW1 & WW2 are undeniably biggies, but surely America didnt really enter these wars due to altruism, they did it to protect their own interests. In doing so they belatedly joined the other countries that had already been involved in fudge-saving for several years, as simply another participant. What you're really talking about is the USA "saving it's own fudge by military action elsewhere in the world". That's fine, but don't pass it off as some selfless act of generosity.

Agreed. It's kind of like in Afghanistan.

'You didn't get Osama'

'But look at all the people we liberated!'

'But that wasn't the objective!'

'Yes, it was.'

'Then why didn't you do it years ago?'

'Uhhhhhh.....'